20% vat on fees

[namechangedforthisone35]

IF Labour get in and IF the 20% does get added to fees, how many private school pupils will be moved to state? I have three kids (one not school aged yet) and in private school. One of many reasons because I didn't want them in a class of 30. I couldn't afford the vat increase so would have to move them but then that class of 30 becomes, what, 40?! In an already strained and unresourced system?!

Wwyd?

Y - I'd have to move kids to state
N - I'll pay the vat

‘It will likely create zero revenue ‘

1. you’re wrong
2. we don’t care. If it’s not right then it’s not right.

All I am asking for is full accountability after this policy has been implemented. I want to know how many private schools go bust, teachers lose their jobs, tax payers move abroad etc. They can do it, but I want to see the actual outcome and figures in black and white. In particular, I want to see any impact on SEN kids in the private sector. I also want to see how many private schools leave TPS just before and in the immediate aftermath. And we need to track the rise in applications to the most sought after state schools, grammars and outstanding comps and understand what happens there, as well as keeping a close eye on the school’s budget.
I am convinced this policy is sheer madness. So all I ask for is a proper investigation into it after it has been implemented.

What 'social networking'?

Maybe at Eton, but the vast majority of private schools are not Eton and there is no social networking. Half my siblings went to private schools including big name public schools, half of us did not - I can't think of any useful social contacts. It's a bit of a myth.

And huge numbers are at private schools not because they are chasing Oxbridge and sheafs of Grade 9s and A stars, but because they can't cope in large state schools due to SEN or bullying.

Or are you exempting all the specialist SEN schools, or schools for ASD girls? What percentage of SEN does a private school need to be taking to not be included in the VAT charge?

What's your view on places like Purcell or Chets or White Lodge?

Are parents buying expensive houses in the catchments of the top comprehensives buying grades and paying for privilege? Or those spending thousands and years tutoring for a grammar school place?

Ok I will bite even though if you bother TRFT this has been explained countless times.

No it isn't about buying grades or social networks. The school is a rural lesser private and not one of the elites. Unless you want to be a farmer there aren't many advantageous networks from the school!

I take it you lump all private schools in with Eton et al? They are a small minority of ridiculously elite schools and couldn't be further away from DDs school.

I don't value education by outcomes, I value it for the journey. We aren't paying for outcomes.

Lol at your "silk purse out of cow's ear". Aggressive much?

I want to know how many private schools go bust, teachers lose their jobs, tax payers move abroad etc

This is why their policies are gimmicks based on spin rather than economic literacy

The great thing about having a government is they can make laws. They can make any law they like no matter how daft, as we will see tomorrow.

Jgw1 if that’s the case then why have Labour backtracked on removing charitable status from public schools?

"We don’t care" sums it up. This IS an attempt to bring private schools down rather than raise up state schools.

The most aggressive comments on this thread are from anti-private comments. Go figure

I don’t think this is about VAT on private schools anyway. I think the Labour Party hate the fact that people can die and leave money to their old private school free of inheritance tax AND they can gift aid cash to their old private school too. Why not enable a system where people can do the same for state schools if they want to.

Araminta there was a thread along these lines on here some time ago. Many independent schools have thriving old boy/girl associations and, as you mention, alumni leave money to their old schools - in some cases millions of pounds.
It was suggested that state schools set up old alumni associations as a means of keeping in touch and raising money. Needless to say every possible reason why it wouldn’t work was put forward, and every time someone suggested a solution there was a counter argument as to why it couldn’t be done.

When it comes to Uni applications, they do now take private schooling into consideration, and will mostly take high grades with a pinch of salt, however.

‘When it comes to Uni applications, they do now take private schooling into consideration, and will mostly take high grades with a pinch of salt, however.’

And if you think moving your child from private to a state 6th form is going to fool anyone , it won’t. They’re also taking that into consideration.

‘This IS an attempt to bring private schools down rather than raise up state schools.’

Send your child to private school if you want, that’s your choice. I chose not to.
But don’t expect people to support fake tax breaks for businesses that cater to the wealthy. These schools are NOT charities and shouldn’t be treated as such.

It’s also good that the grip of the privately educated is starting to loosen on Oxbridge and university places and in certain professions.

We don’t get the best people when we only have those from the same school/class/background/outlook.

You do realise that what Oxbridge and Cambridge are doing is lowering their entry criteria for certain students who might not otherwise get in and raising the standard for other students who might otherwise have got in? You think that's good?

The reality is, any selection criteria which uses a measure other than competency will result in less competency as the outcome. Why would we want our very best institutions to pick anything other than the most competent applicants? wherever they come from. You get the best people when you chose the best people. Education is a competency multiplier.

You are actually berating the people who pay the full cost of their child's education, those who in most cases contribute more to your own child's education than you do, for not paying even more than they do already.

Like many, you are so used to the current paradigm as being normal that you can't even see how warped your view of the world is.

I also think if the rich, elite want to create a Bullingdon Club in London for young professionals they will anyway. Regardless of private schools or Oxford. The people at the top know each other and will just create other ways to network. Like they do in all countries. They will just have another playing ground to flock to. Nought the Labour Party can do about that. In fact, if you attack a way of living, you create more of a will to do just that. Private member clubs, livery companies etc will all just become more and more common place again.

Taxing private schools just harms the teachers there and those who can barely afford it and those for whom private school was the only option for an education because their children have SEN. Class and culture wars are just a negative way of being for all in the end. And usually the most deprived suffer. Right now some people will have been living in areas with poorer state schools and paid up for private school. The more you take away that option, the more you create middle class enclaves and ghettos, sadly.

And the result of the VAT policy = make private school even more elitist because only the truly wealthy will be able to afford it.
It will mean the end of many bursaries which currently enable bright but financially disadvantaged kids to attend private schools.
So you actually increase inequality and the chasm between the elite and the general population.

‘And the result of the VAT policy = make private school even more elitist because only the truly wealthy will be able to afford it.’

pretty much like that now.

The reality is, any selection criteria which uses a measure other than competency will result in less competency as the outcome

Exactly. I can see the argument for doing blind admissions/recruitment, ie not knowing which school someone came from, but we should be selecting the best students. I cannot understand the logic of penalising the highest performing students. This is where this country is going to struggle going forward. We will lose the best and most competent students to other countries who value them.

These schools are NOT charities and shouldn’t be treated as such.

Keeping repeating the same thing doesn’t suddenly make it true. The fact is that some of these schools are charities. Whether or not you agree with that is a different matter. There are lots of private schools which aren’t charities. Even the Labour Party have said that they won’t strip schools of charitable status (largely because they’ve finally realised that it would be too complicated to do).

Apart from the current number of kids who are on bursaries, who are from 'average' families, who are on academic scholarships. All those kids will be less likely to attend so the intake of each school will narrow to only the truly wealthy + foreign students. Schools will focus more and more on attracting overseas students.

You come across as having no experience of the private sector yourself so are relying on stereotypes.

Oxbridge is never ever going to reflect the FSM rate in UK state schools, currently at 23.8%. It is always going to be the battle ground of the middle classes. I doubt the Uber elite even give a damn about Oxbridge anyway. They used to be more into places like Edinburgh and now it seems to be places like Bath uni and US unis are the big trend.

Private school is neither here nor there. If you want to hothouse your kids with private tutors in all subjects and Oxbridge prep, nobody is going to know anyway. So yes, it should probably be school blind for all except those on FSM and who qualify for Polar/Tundra.

How are you defining "competency"? And why would you think that a definition which strictly aligns with scores on highly trainable exams should be the be all and end all?

Who gets to define what "best students" means? What the students can demonstrate on exams at point of university entry shouldn't be the important consideration. What's more important is what the students will be able to do at point of university exit. But, if all we have to go on is A Level scores, we then need to examine the context of the scores, to take into account that those scores were achieved with more or less resources and support. If we don't, we're willfully ignoring useful information.

Blind selection for a performing orchestra or, indeed, most jobs, makes sense. When there is no expectation for significant development, what matters most is how you can perform there and then. Blind selection for universities doesn't make sense. The snapshot of performance doesn't give you a full picture of what the potential for growth and learning is.

@Araminta1003 if you think that FSM status should be taken into account as a crude proxy for unusually poor resources, why would you not take into account private education as a crude proxy for unusually rich resources?

I’m defining competency as much more than exam results. Admissions and recruitment should be (and often are) about much more than that. It should be about the way students think about problems, suggested solutions, problem solving etc, not just knowledge and facts they’ve managed to remember until then.

to take into account that those scores were achieved with more or less resources and support.

How are recruiters going to take account of students who might have attended an average state school but have been heavily tutored at great expense? Is that any different from those who’ve gone to private school? Looking at which school someone went to cannot possibly tell the whole picture. You could have a student who struggled against all the odds to win an academic scholarship and bursary to a private school at 11/13. Should they then be at a disadvantage compared with another child who has had great family support, tens of thousands spent on private tuition but who attended an average comprehensive?

Define elite? My DS is starting private school in August. Will cost £12.5k a year. We both work full time, house in suburbs, one slightly crap car and will be holidaying in a caravan in Easter. When DD joins him we will need to really tighten our belts for 3 years.
Don't get me wrong, pretty happy with our lot and recognise our privilege but to be classed as elite? Are we?

@Araminta1003 if you think that FSM status should be taken into account as a crude proxy for unusually poor resources, why would you not take into account private education as a crude proxy for unusually rich resources?

Because I personally have a lot of very educationally privileged friends who harbour inverse snobbery type sentiments towards private schools. However, their own children are extremely privileged, at least by my definition. Not one of them is FSM. Not one of them goes to a school with high FSM rates compared to their locality.

To me educational privilege is linked to parental educational attainment, books/news/discussions, piano lessons type thing, not which school you went to. It comes from love, attention, sitting with your kids to do homework, reading to them, feeding them healthy food etc from an early age. What uni your mother/father went to is far more relevant than what school you go to. I don’t think uni admissions should be artificially second guessing amounts of privilege, because it is not possible to do it correctly. They should only be identifying proper deprivation and challenges. And frankly if a child has been to Harrow and lost a parent and suffered leukaemia and overcome all of that, they should really also get a widening participation allocation. The question is where do we draw the line on adverse circumstances. I think it has to be quite low because there is simply no time in uni admissions to get it correct.

So how about parents who send their kids to the best state schools, move house to ensure they get in, use private tutors and have several foreign holidays a year.
How about parents who send their DC to grammar schools?
Are they not also part of the elite? Are they not buying their DC advantages?

Once you start talking about privilege in education you aren't just talking about private schools, you have to include grammars and the outstanding state schools whereby unless you can afford a 600K - 1 million pound house then you don't stand a chance of getting in.

Just using the blunt tool of VAT on private schools won't fund the massive injection of cash requires by the state sector and it won't reduce privilege in education or level the playing field. As you have pointed out yourself you don't actually care about the nuances around it, or illogical thinking behind the policy, you just want to attack private education because you don't like it.

Exam results are not the "be all and end all" - that's why there's an interview process and further problem solving tests - but they are still highly relevant, particularly at A level.

The university gets to define what best student means. They know the course and are best placed to judge who would do well on their course and who may struggle.

You argue that having less support means the exam score should be given more weight. Why? To think that you must believe that those students with the less support somehow have a broader understanding, or potential to understand the topic than their exam scores suggests compared to those with access to better resources with equivalent grades. That may be true in some cases, it may not. What's your reasoning in assuming it's true in every case?